Every
day millions across the country navigate to government webpages, to
read pertinent information. Since
2000 that access has been safeguarded, thanks to a prohibition on
government websites using cookies or other tracking technology to
track users. Agency exceptions could only be granted under
cases of "compelling need".

Now
the Obama
administration
is looking to overturn
that prohibition
and potentially begin harvesting a wealth of data on its citizen's
activities. Under the plan, the prohibition would be replaced
with a set of privacy provisions. Aides say that it would
increase government transparency and "increase public
involvement".

The
measure, though, has many opponents. The American Civil
Liberties Union spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball commented that the
measure would "allow the mass collection of personal information
of every user of a federal government website."

Other
opponents dislike that the government may be looking to revoke the
protections at the request of search-engine
giant Google
and other parties. The Electronic Privacy Information Center
and Electronic Frontier Foundation, both of which oppose the measure,
pointed to a February 19 contract with Google and an unnamed federal
agency over an exemption to use the
YouTube player.

EPIC
retrieved the proposed changes, negotiated by the General Services
Administration, through a Freedom of Information Act request and says
they "expressly waive those rules or guidelines as they may
apply to Google." States EPIC Executive Director Marc
Rotenberg, "Our primary concern is that the GSA has failed to
protect the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. The expectation is
they should be complying with the government regulations, not that
the government should change its regulations to accommodate these
companies."

Currently,
government content is banned from having tracking cookies, but
third-party content, such as YouTube videos on federal websites may
have tracking cookies. Google spokeswoman Christine Chen
declined to discuss the new rules, but thanked the government for its
use of YouTube, stating, "[The use of YouTube] is just one
example of how government and citizens communicate more effectively
online, and we are proud of having worked closely with the White
House to provide privacy protections for users."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"Illegal" wiretapping is something else than admitting you are doing it. I almost prefer the former, though, at least then you acknowledge it isn't above board.

This is not "illegal" wiretapping, of course. I am still against it, but tracking is not wiretapping, per se.

You have to understand that "illegal" wiretapping means, "doing what the law says you can't do." If you change the law (e.g., PATRIOT act), it's not illegal. Either way I'm against it, but proposing to change the law and just ignoring it are very different things.

Again, not sure which is worse, admitting you are changing the law and setting a precedent that it is ok, or secretly ignoring the law and setting precedent that it is wrong.

Let me clear this once more. The Patriot Act STILL requires a warrant if ANY call was placed or received inside the US. It allows them to listen until they receive it within a short, specific, period of time. If they listened and found something, they must have a warrant to go to court, period.

One other major item that keeps the Patriot Act in a different league than what Obama is doing is that the Patriot Act MUST be renewed every 5 years by Congress. This enables refining of or removal of some or all pieces of the legislation based on legal and performance issues.

With so many foreign communications passing through the US it would be foolish to ignore them. These rules are very specific in their implementation and ALL errors have to be reported to Congress, as they have been.

The Federal Government has slowly crept into our lives via our computers. Government MUST get LEGAL permission through a warrant for ANY domestic surveillance of any kind. Computers, like our phones must be protected with warrants, no matter how easy it is to eves drop and down load it's information. As far as I'm concerned, if they know it IS an foreign national trying to access a site, open season just like the phone calls. Just like the phone calls, it must be reported to Congress. You know that balance of power thing.

Just because a US citizen accesses a Gov website, doesn't mean the Government has the right to download their entire contents.

For those who voted for "Change" are you getting what you expected? I didn't vote for him so I can't answer that, but I am curious. I'm not asking to be facetious.

quote: Let me clear this once more. The Patriot Act STILL requires a warrant if ANY call was placed or received inside the US. It allows them to listen until they receive it within a short, specific, period of time. If they listened and found something, they must have a warrant to go to court, period.

Yes, the PATRIOT act does require this. However, the NSA surveillance program ("terrorist surveillance program"), warrants are not required. All that is required is that the NSA believe that one end of the conversation be outside the US. It doesn't actually have to be outside the US, the NSA just has to "think" it is! Add to that, the calls could go to Canada and qualify.

Now, if the belief of the NSA is all that is required to completely bypass wiretap laws and even the much more limited requirements of the PATRIOT act (which only requires a warrant, not a wiretap order), it basically means they can wiretap anyone.

Can they use the wiretap in court? Well, probably not. But is that all we care about?

I thought you might have referred to the "terrorist surveillance program," which as far as I am concerned is both "illegal" and illegal. No law allowed for it, but the NSA did it anyway. They completely bypassed wiretapping laws and the warrant requirements of the PATRIOT act.

Now, you can argue whether it's a good idea, of course. But legal? Not really.